If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Tomsovic:
Q. AND PHOTOGRAPHS "I" AND "J", WHAT DO THEY SHOW?
A. THEY WERE THE CONTENTS OF AN ENVELOPE WHICH WAS EVIDENCE ITEM NO. 12 AS DEPICTED WHERE IT WAS FOUND IN PHOTOGRAPH "F", THAT WHEN THE ENVELOPE WAS OPENED THOSE WERE THE CONTENTS.

Q. WERE YOU THE INDIVIDUAL THAT SEARCHED THAT ROOM,DETECTIVE?
A. NO, I WAS NOT.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO IT WAS?
A. I BELIEVE THE TWO AGENTS FROM THE REGIONAL COMPUTER FORENSIC LAB, JAMES WATKINS AND JAMES YOUNGFLESH WERE SEARCHING THAT ROOM IN PARTICULAR.

Watkins:
A: I WAS WITH LEE YOUNGFLESH FROM THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

...agents from the FBI attempted to obtain a Federal arrest warrant for David Westerfield for possession of child pornography.

FBI agents consulted an Assistant U.S. Attorney who concluded that the photographs in ATTACHMENT E did not meet the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal standard for lascivious conduct .

The Assistant U.S. Attorney stated the images might the standards of other Federal circuits, but she was required to follow the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.

Comment

From court docs:
He also stated that during the February 5 search of Mr. Westerfield's home, FBI special agent Lee Youngflesh saw in "plain view" three CD disks and three computer diskettes marked with an "X" or "XO." He and Detective Watkins used their computers to look at the disks and found "possible child pornography."
Neal's version:
Q. LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO COURT'S EXHIBIT 102 BEHIND YOU. DO YOU SEE ON ANY OF THOSE BOOKSHELVES WHERE THAT WAS FOUND?
A. ON PICTURE "F" WHERE THE 12 IS DEPICTED.

Q. WHAT DID YOU FIND THERE? DESCRIBE WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE WHEN YOU FIRST FOUND IT.
A. I FOUND A C. D. WITH THE LABELING "X01".

Q. DID YOU FIND ANYTHING ELSE THERE?
A. I FOUND A COUPLE OTHER C. D.S AND SOME ZIP DISKS.

Q. DO YOU RECALL ANY LABELING ON THEM?
A. NOT SPECIFICALLY.
(And two CD roms labeled Spectrum 01 and Spectrum 02 with porn movies on them?)

Q. TAKE A PEAK?
A. YES.

Q. WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A. FILES AND FOLDERS OF PORNOGRAPHY.

Comment

From court docs:
He also stated that during the February 5 search of Mr. Westerfield's home, FBI special agent Lee Youngflesh saw in "plain view" three CD disks and three computer diskettes marked with an "X" or "XO." He and Detective Watkins used their computers to look at the disks and found "possible child pornography."

From court docs:
...agents from the FBI attempted to obtain a Federal arrest warrant for David Westerfield for possession of child pornography.

FBI agents consulted an Assistant U.S. Attorney who concluded that the photographs in ATTACHMENT E did not meet the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal standard for lascivious conduct .

The Assistant U.S. Attorney stated the images might the standards of other Federal circuits, but she was required to follow the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.
(Much ado about nothing!!!)

Lawson:
Q WHY NOT?
A I DON'T ACCEPT ANY MEDIA THAT CONTAINS ANYTHING THAT IS ALLEGED TO BE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN OUR OFFICE UNLESS IT'S ACCOMPANIED BY A FEDERAL COURT ORDER FOR BOTH ITS TRANSPORTATION AND ITS POSSESSION.

MR. DUSEK:
I THINK WHAT WE WERE SEEKING TIME FOR WAS ON THE DEFINITION OF THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DEFINITION. 3. -- I'M SORRY. 311.11. THE DEFINITION OF THAT.

Boyce:
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW WITH A SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY THAT THERE'S ANY CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN THIS CASE.

Different witness:
A: QUESTIONABLE IS KIND OF A BROAD TERM. IT'S USED PRIMARILY FOR THE AREA OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. WE'RE LOOKING AT IMAGES THAT WOULD BE OF SOME -- SAY JUVENILES UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN. THAT'S QUESTIONABLE.

MR. BOYCE:
Your Honor, we object to exhibits 4 and 5 because they are not child pornography, as defined by 3.11, for two reasons. 1, they don't depict underage children engaged, and secondly, they're not engaged in sexual activity.

THE COURT: Do you want to respond?

MR. DUSEK: I believe they do. The court can certainly make that determination when it looks at them. Also, they are relevant to show motive on this case.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME GO DOWN THE LIST AS I SEE IT. FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT IN CHARGE OF THE PRESS GETTING IT RIGHT. IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE WERE GROSS ERRORS IN COVERAGE AS TO THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONED CHILD PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES. I'M ASSUMING THESE PEOPLE WERE IN THE COURTROOM. IF THEY WERE IN THE COURTROOM, THEIR EDITORS OUGHT TO TAKE THEM OUT AND GIVE THEM A NEW ASSIGNMENT COVERING WEDDINGS OR SOMETHING. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT I CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THE MEDIA PUTS OUT. I MEAN IF THEY GET IT WRONG, THEY GET IT WRONG. THEY GOT IT WRONG AS IT RELATES TO THE NUMBER OF IMAGES.

Clarke:
I'M NOT SURE WHERE TO RESPOND. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ARGUED MOST OF THIS ALREADY. SO I'M GOING TO DIRECT MY COMMENTS TO, FRANKLY, JUST BRIEFLY WITH REGARD TO THIS QUESTION OF OPENING THE DOOR. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY THE RIGHT TERM. I THINK THE COURT, COUNSEL, AND EVERYONE WAS AWARE THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY A TACTICAL DECISION TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT BY WAY OF NUMBER OF THESE VARIOUS PHOTOGRAPHS INVOLVING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Q AND HE FOUND NO FILES DEPICTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. WAS THAT HIS CONCLUSION?

MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION; HEARSAY, NO FOUNDATION AS TO WHAT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS.

THE COURT: YOU MIGHT WANT -- I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THE HEARSAY OBJECTION. BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHANGE THE PHRASEOLOGY WITH RESPECT TO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Storyteller:
YOU WILL FIND THE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT HIM OF MURDERING, KIDNAPPING, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AND POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

FINALLY, WE'LL GET INTO WHY THIS HAPPENED AND ONE LAST COUNT THAT WE HAVE, POSSESSION OF THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
...AND THEY PULLED THOSE OUT, AND THEY LOOKED AT WHAT WAS ON THERE. AND WHEN THEY DID, THEY FOUND THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY COUNT.

BY MR. CLARKE:
Q. OKAY. OF WHAT?
A. OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Q. WHAT DOES CALIFORNIA SAY ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
A. I BELIEVE THAT CALIFORNIA LAW DISCUSSES VIA CASE LAW WHAT IS DEFINED AS A LASCIVIOUS EXHIBITION OF THE CHILD GENITALS OR SEXUAL ACTS OF CHILDREN.

Q. SO IT HAS TO BE A PERSON UNDER <18, RIGHT?
A. CORRECT.

Q. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE INVOLVED IN A SEX ACT, DOES IT?
A. NO.

Q. HOW ABOUT A PHOTOGRAPH OF A YOUNG GIRL, SOMEONE UNDER 18, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THEIR GENITALS?

MR. FELDMAN: OBJECTION, RELEVANCE.

THE COURT: APPROACH THE BENCH.

...Q. SO SOMETHING -- FOR INSTANCE, IF THERE'S A SITE CALLED "LOLITA DOT COM," DOES THAT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT PARTICULAR WEB SITE WOULD CONTAIN UNDERAGE CHILDREN?
A. ACTUALLY, I KNOW SPECIFICALLY THAT LOLITA DOT COM IS AN -- IT'S A SITE FOR ADULT PORNOGRAPHY LINKS. IF YOU GO TO LOLITA DOT COM, IN FACT, I BELIEVE IT HAS A BANNER SAYING IF YOU'RE HERE TO FIND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY YOU'RE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE, AND IT HAS LINKS TO OTHER ADULT SITES.
(Apparently state laws and federal laws describe child porn differently. And I thought fed law trumped state law, you know like the marijuana laws.

Why wasn't Westerfield arrested for child porn when it was found? Found on Feb. 5th, arrested on Feb. 22nd. He was found guilty of posession under the state law, why wasn't he arrested on Feb. 5th under the state law? Were they giving him time to think up better stories?)

Comment

(Did the Boston Strangler kill Danielle van Dam? Evidence found on blanket could shed new light on tragedy.)

July 11, 2013

The remains of long-time Boston Strangler suspect Albert DeSalvo were being exhumed Thursday after preliminary DNA tests found a link between him and the last slaying attributed to the infamous 1960s serial killer, according to a prosecutor in Boston.

"There was no forensic evidence to link Albert DeSalvo to Mary Sullivan's murder until today," said Daniel F. Conley, the Suffolk County district attorney, at a news conference Thursday in which the findings were announced.

Sullivan, who is widely believed to be victim in a string of 11 -- possibly as many as 13 -- sensational murders, was found strangled in her Boston apartment in January, 1964.

Conley told reporters Thursday that the "familial match" to DeSalvo excludes 99.99 per cent of suspects but is not enough to close the case.
(Say what? What percentage of the DNA evidence tested at the van Dam crime scene and recovery scene included Westerfield? 0.000,000,000,000,000% What percentage of the evidence NOT tested includes Westerfield? We won't know until it's been tested, will we?)

The DNA, which had been preserved, had been taken from Sullivan's body and a blanket in her home. The "familial match" was taken from a water bottle used recently by DeSalvo's nephew, according to authorities, The New York Times reports.
(Sounds like mitochondrial DNA. Probably why Danielle's blanket was only tested to EXCLUDE her killer, Westerfield. How many years are we going to wait for the truth about the blood on Danielle's blanket?)

Officials stressed that the DNA evidence links DeSalvo only to Sullivan's killing and that no DNA evidence is believed to exist for the other Boston Strangler slayings.

DeSalvo, who was arrested for a series of rapes, confessed to 11 of the Boston Strangler murders, and two other slayings, but was never convicted of them.

In 1967, at the age of 36, DeSalvo was sentenced to life in prison for armed roberies and sexual assaults. He was represented by famed attorney F. Lee Bailey.

Six years later, DeSalvo, who had recanted his confessions of the Boston Strangler murders, was stabbed to death in Walpole state prison. The remains were being exhumed from Puritan Lawn Cemetery in Peabody, Mass.

Sullivan's nephew Casey Sherman has for years maintained that DeSalvo did not kill his aunt and even wrote a book on the case pointing to other possible suspects.

He said he accepted the new findings after concluding that the DNA evidence against DeSalvo appeared to be overwhelming.
(excludes 99.99 per cent of suspects but is not enough to close the case.)

"I only go where the evidence leads," he said.

"The DNA, which had been preserved, had been taken from Sullivan's body and a blanket in her home."
(Sound familiar?)

Q. I'D LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION NOW TO AN ADDITIONAL ITEM THAT WAS INITIALLY LABELED ITEM 10-7A, IDENTIFIED AS A CUTTING TAKEN FROM A BLANKET FROM THE VICTIM'S BEDROOM, I BELIEVE WAS LABELED IN YOUR LABORATORY ITEM 25?
A. THAT IS CORRECT.

Q. BY COMPARISON OF THAT PARTICULAR SAMPLE, THAT IS, THE RESULTS FROM THAT MIXTURE TO ANY OF THE KNOWN INDIVIDUALS IN THIS CASE COULD YOU REACH ANY CONCLUSIONS?
A. YES. ON PAGE FOUR OF THE REPORT DATED 10 MAY, BASED ON THE D. N. A. PROFILES DERIVED FROM THIS ANALYSIS, DANIELLE VAN DAM CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS A POSSIBLE MINOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THE MIXTURE OBSERVED IN SAMPLE 25.MR. WESTERFIELD IS EXCLUDED AS A CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS MIXTURE.
(Somebody needs to find out WHO the MAJOR contributor to the blood on Danielle's blanket was and then explain how and when that blood got there.)

Q. FROM YOUR RESULTS ARE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER CONTRIBUTOR TO THAT MIXTURE COULD HAVE BEEN A SIBLING OF DANIELLE VAN DAM OR CAN YOU DETERMINE THAT?
A. I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THAT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
(Translation: We haven't tried to exclude anybody except Westerfield as the donor and were able to do that.
Damon, Rich, Keith, Denise, Brenda and Barbara have NOT been excluded.
As a matter of fact, the ONLY person excluded as the blood donor on Danielle's blanket is her killer Westerfield.
Westerfield killed Danielle and left the blood of somebody else at the crime scene and mixed that blood with Danielle's?
Who's blood did Westerfield use and how did he acquire it? Did he have a packet of blood at his house, just in case?

You can argue about the validity of a search warrant or probable cause all you want, what's really important is WHO's blood is mixed with Danielle's blood on her blanket and HOW and WHEN did it get there?
Then we can investigate WHY SDPD and the DA's office chose to ignore this crucial piece of evidence which points towards Danielle's true killer and exonerates Westerfield!! It is really that simple, for starters.

Once the blood donor on Danielle's blanket is identified hairs found at Dehesa can be compared to the blood found on Danielle's blanket for a match. A match from Danielle's bedroom with from hairs found at Dehesa would be very hard for anybody to explain. If the hairs from Dehesa and the blood from Danielle's blanket didn't match, that would require yet another explanation.)

Comment

Soriano, the ultimate team player:
Q ALL RIGHT. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION IF I COULD TO BEDDING IDENTIFIED TO YOU AS HAVING COME FROM THE VICTIM'S BEDROOM. DID YOU EXAMINE SUCH AN ITEM?
A YES, I DID.
(Did you take photographs of it?)

Q WHAT ITEM NUMBER HAD IT BEEN ASSIGNED?
A COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC?

Q SURE. IN PARTICULAR WAS THERE A BLANKET THAT YOU EXAMINED IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM THE VICTIM'S BED?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, IF YOU'VE GOT AN ITEM NUMBER, IT CERTAINLY WOULD ASSIST HIM I'M SURE.

MR. CLARKE: ALL RIGHT. BY MR. CLARKE:

Q I THINK IT'S ITEM NUMBER 10.
A COULD YOU BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT?

Q SURE. IT MIGHT BE ITEM 10-7 I BELIEVE.
A YES, I DID.

Q OKAY. WHAT WAS THAT ITEM?
A ONE MULTI-COLORED BLANKET WITH DESIGN PATTERNS, A LARGE POCKET.

Q DID YOU FIND ANY BLOODSTAINS ON THAT?
A YES, I DID.

Q ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU IN FACT CUT THAT PORTION OUT AND PRESERVE IT, LABEL IT, AND IMPOUND IT APPROPRIATELY?
A YES, I DID.

Q WITH WHAT DESIGNATION?
A I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 145 OF MY NOTES. THE POSITIVE STAIN THAT TESTED POSITIVE FOR THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD WAS ITEM NUMBER 10-7A.

Q WHERE WAS THAT STAIN LOCATED BY YOU ON THE BLANKET?
A THIS IS NOTED ON WHAT I DESIGNATED AS SIDE B.

Q ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU TELL WHICH SIDE WAS WHICH?
A YES, I CAN. WHEN I OBSERVED THIS BLANKET AND I MADE MY NOTATION, THERE WAS A POCKET, LIKE A PATTERN POCKET, ON ONE OF THE SIDES OF THE BLANKET. THAT WHERE THE POCKET RESIDED I DESIGNATED THAT AS SIDE A. THE OTHER SIDE OPPOSITE OF THAT WAS DESIGNATED AS SIDE B.

Q I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN YOUR ATTENTION IF I COULD TO STAIRWAY STAINS; THAT IS, BLOODSTAINS, POTENTIAL BLOODSTAINS, THAT WERE IDENTIFIED TO YOU AS COMING FROM THE STAIRWAY AREA OF THE VICTIM'S RESIDENCE. DO YOU RECALL THOSE?
A YES, I DO.

Q WERE THEY DESIGNATED ITEMS 14 WITH SUB NUMBERS AS WELL?
A YES, THEY WERE.

Q WHAT ROLE, IF ANY, DID YOU PLAY WITH RESPECT TO THOSE STAINS?
A AGAIN A REQUEST WAS GIVEN TO ME TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF HUMAN BLOOD.

Q WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE WITH REGARD TO THOSE ITEMS?
A NO HUMAN BLOOD WAS FOUND ON -- I'M REFERRING TO PAGE 12 OF MY REPORT. NO HUMAN BLOOD WAS DETECTED ON THE REDDISH-BROWN STAIN OBSERVED ON THE SWAB WHICH WAS LABELED AS ITEM 14-4.

Q SO YOU TESTED ONE OF THE THREE STAINS, IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q AND DETERMINED THAT -- FIRST OF ALL, WERE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE IF IT WAS BLOOD?
A FROM THE TEST IT GAVE ME A RESULT THAT NO HUMAN BLOOD WAS FOUND.

Q SO IT WAS NOT HUMAN BLOOD?
A CORRECT.
(It was blood, just not human. Bright red blood when it was noticed, just not bright red human blood.)

Comment

Q DID THAT INCLUDE A SHIPMENT THAT YOU PREPARED ON OR ABOUT APRIL 29TH OF THIS YEAR?
A (PAUSE.)
(February 4th until April 29th is how many days? That's how many days the blood on Danielle's blanket was ignored. It would be interesting to know WHEN Soriano found the blood on Danielle's blanket.)

I'M SORRY. OKAY. I'M REFERRING TO PAGE 200 OF MY NOTES. AND I'M ALSO REFERRING TO AN ADMINISTRATION DOCUMENT THAT HAS A LETTER DATED APRIL 29, 2002.

Q ALL RIGHT. DID YOU PREPARE VARIOUS ITEMS FOR SHIPMENT TO A LABORATORY CALLED BODE, B-O-D-E, TECHNOLOGY?
A YES, I DID.

Q DID THAT SHIPMENT THAT YOU PREPARED INCLUDE THE ITEM 2-1, STAIN FROM THE VICTIM CLOTHING?
A OKAY. IN MY NOTES ON PAGE 203, THE ITEM THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, WHICH IS ITEM 2-1, --

Q 2-1, CORRECT.
A OKAY. THE ITEM THAT MAY REFER TO THAT, THIS IS ACCORDING TO THE DESCRIPTION ON THE PACKAGING, I RECEIVED THE PACKAGING AS LABELED AS PROPERTY TAG 850125FB-11. AND ACCORDING TO THE LABELING ON THAT, THAT CONTAINED ITEM 2-1.
(Not sure what the FB-11 stand for. Any ideas?)

Q ALL RIGHT. DID IT ALSO INCLUDE, THAT IS, THE SHIPMENT, WHAT WAS LABELED AS 3A-1, CLOTHING FROM THE VICTIM'S ROOM?
A AGAIN ACCORDING TO WHAT I HAVE DESCRIBED HERE, YES.

Q DID IT ALSO INCLUDE THE COLLECTION ITEM, THE ITEM COLLECTED FROM THE BLANKET IN THE VICTIM'S ROOM WHICH YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER AS 10-7A?
A AGAIN I'M REFERRING TO THE SAME PAGE, PAGE 203, OF MY NOTES. AND, YES, IT DID CONTAIN ITEM 10-7A.

...Q ALL RIGHT. AND, LASTLY, DID THAT SHIPMENT INCLUDE AN ITEM IDENTIFIED AS 53F-B2, A PILLOW CUTTING?
A I AM REFERRING TO PAGE 201 OF MY NOTES, AND, YES, IT DOES REFER TO 53F-B2.

Comment

Item number 1 is a mystery. Perhaps it's listed on Karen's evidence list with a date of incident of February 1st.

Collected on February 2nd?:
Q: AND IN FACT YOU LOCATED A RED-BROWN STAIN ON THE PAJAMA TOP, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU IDENTIFIED IT AS ITEM 2 OR 2-1, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
(Item with blood in it.)

...Q. DID YOU OBTAIN RESULTS FROM THE UNDERWEAR ITEM NO. 3?
A. YES, I DID.
(Item with staining in the crotch.)

...Q: YOU ALSO CONDUCTED A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD ON A SHIRT WHICH WAS LATER IDENTIFIED AS ITEM 3A ON THE EVIDENCE LIST, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
(Item with blood in it.)

...A: I'M REFERRING TO A REPORT THAT'S DATED FEBRUARY 27TH. THE REPORT LISTS THE ITEMS, AND THE NOTES DESCRIBE THE ACTUAL ITEM NUMBERS. ITEM 4 IS IDENTIFIED AS THE FITTED SHEET.

...Q. ALL RIGHT. MR. CLARKE WAS ASKING ALL THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT VACUUMING. IN YOUR EVIDENCE LIST ITEM 5 YOU LISTED ONE HOOVER STEAM VAC WITH A WATER WELL, THAT HOLDS EXTRACTED WALKER -- WATER RATHER, THAT WAS WET. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, ITEM 5, MA'AM?
A. ON THE STEAM VAC?

...Q: ALL RIGHT.
A: THE STAIN IS HERE IN THE THRESHOLD OF THE GARAGE DOORWAY.
(3 inch blood stain.)

Q: HOW?
A: I USED A SWAB METHOD. AND THAT'S BASICALLY WETTING A Q-TIP-TYPE ITEM WITH SOME STERILE WATER AND SWABBING IT OR WITH SOME DISTILLED WATER AND SWABBING IT AND THEN PUTTING IT IN AN ENVELOPE INSIDE OF A BINDLE, LABELING IT, IMPOUNDING IT, ASSIGNING IT AN ITEM NUMBER.

Q: WHAT WAS THE ITEM NUMBER YOU ASSIGNED IT?
A: 6-1.
Collected on February 4th:
...A: ANOTHER ENVELOPE THAT HAS MY SIGNATURE ON THE SEAL. IT HAS MY INITIALS. AND IT'S LABELED ITEM NUMBER 7. AND THERE'S A CARTRIDGE CASE INSIDE.

Q IS THIS THE BEAN BAG CHAIR THAT YOU EXAMINED, ITEM NUMBER 8?
A ITEM NUMBER 8 IS THE BEAN BAG CHAIR THAT I EXAMINED.
(Item with blood in it.)

Number 9??????

Q SURE. IN PARTICULAR WAS THERE A BLANKET THAT YOU EXAMINED IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM THE VICTIM'S BED?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, IF YOU'VE GOT AN ITEM NUMBER, IT CERTAINLY WOULD ASSIST HIM I'M SURE.

MR. CLARKE: ALL RIGHT. BY MR. CLARKE:

Q I THINK IT'S ITEM NUMBER 10.
A COULD YOU BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT?

Q SURE. IT MIGHT BE ITEM 10-7 I BELIEVE.
(Item with blood in it.)

...Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND DO SO. AND AS YOU DO SO, IF YOU WOULD JUST TELL US WHAT PARTICULAR REPORT OR NOTE THAT YOU'RE EXAMINING SO THAT WE CAN CORRELATE THAT.
A: I'M REFERRING TO A REPORT THAT'S DATED FEBRUARY 27TH. THE REPORT LISTS THE ITEMS, AND THE NOTES DESCRIBE THE ACTUAL ITEM NUMBERS. ITEM 4 IS IDENTIFIED AS THE FITTED SHEET.

Q: YOU ALSO I BELIEVE -- DID YOU MENTION PILLOWS THAT YOU EXAMINED?
A: YES.

Q: AS WELL AS A BLANKET WITH A POCKET?
A: YES.
(Item with blood in it.)

Q: AND A PURPLE COMFORTER?
A: YES.

Q: WERE THOSE ASSIGNED A PARTICULAR ITEM NUMBER?
A: YES, THEY WERE.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT?
A: THOSE ITEMS WERE ALL DESCRIBED AS ITEM NUMBER 10.
(No flat sheet. That's item 89, found at Dehesa. The fitted sheet is item number 4.
The purple comforter, blanket with a pocket and pillows are part of item 10. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Normally, there is the mattress, the fitted sheet, the flat sheet, pillows, and then a comforter and/or blanket, moving from bottom to top. Yet the numbering of the items is in exactly the reverse order one would expect.
From top to bottom, comforter/blanket item 4. Next is the flat sheet, item 5, next is the fitted sheet, item 6 or A,B,C, etc.
Where is Danielle's flat sheet? Is it really item 89, found and not photographed from the recovery scene at Dehesa?
Was Danielle wrapped in her flat sheet and dragged on the side of her house near the trash cans? Was Danielle wrapped in her flat sheet and dragged at the Dehesa recovery site?)

Q HOW ABOUT YOUR HUSBAND, IS HE BIG ENOUGH AND STRONG ENOUGH TO CARRY HER?
A YES.

Q HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DRAG HER? HE'S STRONG ENOUGH TO CARRY HER IN HIS ARMS?
A YES.
(Correct. Was there a time when Danielle was so heavy, you know, dead weight, that she needed to be wrapped up in her flat sheet and dragged to the car or van? Could that possibly be how the drag marks on the side of the house got there? Could that also be one explanation for the drag marks at Dehesa? You know, too heavy to carry so dragged into the underbrush by Westerfield?)

Feldman also asked Collins about drag marks found near the home, and Collins responded that he was aware that drag marks had been found near a sidewalk there.
("HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DRAG HER?")

Blackbourne testified that the condition of the body was consistent with having been dead for the 3½ weeks Danielle was missing, but under questioning by Feldman later admitted he could not pinpoint the time of Danielle's death and in fact she could have been killed as late as Feb. 10 or later.
(Reasonable doubt!!!)

The cause of death could not be immediately determined, Blackbourne said.
(No cause of death or time of death.)

"The deterioration of even the tissue that was there makes it difficult to determine a cause of death unless a major, major trauma was the cause," he testified.

Although he could not immediately determine a cause, Blackbourne said he could determine that the death was a homicide based on the circumstances of Danielle's disappearance and discovery of her body.
(Versus an accidental death and cover up? Anybody explain what would be different from a homicide and accidental death regarding Danielle?)

Comment

...Q: ON THIS OCCASION, THE SECOND TRIP, WHERE YOU WERE LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE IN THE VAN DAM HOME, DID YOU OBSERVE WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN BLOODSTAINS IN THE STAIRWELL AREA OF THE RESIDENCE?
A: YES.

Q I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN YOUR ATTENTION IF I COULD TO STAIRWAY STAINS; THAT IS, BLOODSTAINS, POTENTIAL BLOODSTAINS, THAT WERE IDENTIFIED TO YOU AS COMING FROM THE STAIRWAY AREA OF THE VICTIM'S RESIDENCE. DO YOU RECALL THOSE?
A YES, I DO.

Q WERE THEY DESIGNATED ITEMS 14 WITH SUB NUMBERS AS WELL?
A YES, THEY WERE.

...23 Q. WAS DETECTIVE HOWIE THE DETECTIVE ON FEBRUARY 2ND?
A. NO

...Q. It says -- I indicated detective Joseph Howie, date of this report, 2-12-02, and I'm specifically directing your attention to the last paragraph on page 2 which specifically reads, "I viewed the entire residence, and most notably were three bright red-colored stains about half the size of a pencil eraser located along the walls of the staircase."
(On February 2nd, Joseph Howie discovered three bright red blood stains that weren't collected until Monday February 4th after 10:40 am and after Damon and Brenda were allowed back into the crime scene.)

Q. AND WAS DETECTIVE HOWIE THE DETECTIVE WHO WAS -- I DON'T KNOW, GIVING YOU DIRECTION OR --
A. ON ONE -- ONE OF THE BASE HE WAS.

Q. WHICH DAY, PLEASE?
A. ON STARTING ON THE 4TH OF FEBRUARY.
(Howie discovers the bloodstains on the second then points them out to Dorie on the 4th? Why was much of the blood evidence left at the crime scene when Damon and Brenda were allowed back into the house?
Sounds as if Damon and Brenda spent Sunday, February 3rd cleaning up the house and adding decorations to Danielle's bedroom door. Danielle's pajamas and underwear were the only items of clothing collected on the 2nd during the 12 hours Dorie spent at the crime scene. What exactly was she doing during her 12 hours?
"Got any 4's?"
"Go fish.")

...Q. SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE TIME PERIOD WHERE YOU SEIZED THE SHELL CASING THAT HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT THE DAY BEFORE, WHICH DETECTIVE WAS PRESENT WITH YOU, IF YOU RECALL?
A. DETECTIVE HOWIE.

Q. SO IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH DETECTIVE HOWIE WAS WITH YOU ON AT LEAST THREE OCCASIONS IN WHICH YOU PERFORMED YOUR WORK?
A. I THINK SO.

Comment

(Sounds as if Damon and Brenda spent Sunday, February 3rd cleaning up the house and adding decorations to Danielle's bedroom door.)

Collins:
Q SIR, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU COULD TELL WHEN YOU WENT INSIDE THE BEDROOMS, BASED ON THE COLORS AND BASED ON THE FURNISHINGS, WHETHER IT WAS A BOY'S ROOM OR A GIRL'S ROOM; RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.

Q BUT YOU ALSO TOLD US YOU COULDN'T TELL THAT FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE ROOMS; CORRECT?
A NOT WITH THE DOORS CLOSED.
(Brenda closed the bedroom doors and the psychic ability of Westerfield told him which bedroom belonged to Danielle.)

Dorie covers for Brenda's door decorating:
Q. Did you notice before you entered Danielle Van Dam's bedroom anything unique or unusual about the exterior of the door leading into the room?
A. I'm not sure what you're asking me.

Q. It looked like a regular old door, didn't it?
A. Yes. It just looked like a bedroom door.

Q. All right. And there were -- in fact, there were other bedroom doors when you walked up the stairs; isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. There were at least three bedroom doors; isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. And if the doors were closed or almost closed, they all looked basically the same; isn't that correct?
A. No. That's incorrect.

Q. How were they different?
A. They had unique decorations.

Q. Did you photograph the decorations?

THE COURT: One at a time. Want to finish your answer, please?

THE WITNESS: There were unique decorations on the doors.

BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q. On the exteriors of the doors?
A. On the exteriors of the doors.

Q. Tell me, please, what -- describe those unique decorations, if you can.
A. I don't recall precisely what they were.

Q. You noted them in a report, did you?
A. No, I did not.

Q. You took photographs of it?
A. I was not the photographer that day.

Q. You suggested that photos be taken of them?
A. Yes.

Q. To whom?
A. Rubin Inzunsa.

Brenda covers for Dorie, herself and Damon:
Q THE NEXT BEDROOM THAT YOU WOULD COME TO WOULD BE WHOSE BEDROOM?
A DANIELLE'S.

Q DOES SHE HAVE ANYTHING ON HER DOOR --
A SHE HAS.

Q -- THAT WOULD INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A MALE OR FEMALE IN THAT BEDROOM?
A SHE HAS PINK AND PURPLE HEARTS AND FLOWERS.

Q ABOUT WHAT SIZE ARE THEY, MA'AM?
A THEY ARE, I THINK THEY COULD BE A FOOT LONG ALTOGETHER, AND MAYBE FIVE INCHES IN HEIGHT.

Q HOW ARE THEY ATTACHED TO THE DOOR?
A THEY'RE WALLPAPER FROM HER BORDER AND I CUT THEM OUT SO THAT I COULD PUT THEM ON THE DOOR. SO THEY'RE GLUED ON.

Q CAN YOU ESTIMATE HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN THERE? BALLPARK?
A APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS.

Comment

Speaking of the bean bag chair and 99.99 percent certainty:
Q: THIS JURY HAS PREVIOUSLY HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT S.T.R.'S AND IN PARTICULAR THIRTEEN DIFFERENT AREAS OF OUR D.N.A. THAT ARE CALLED S.T.R.'S. DID YOU USE THOSE PARTICULAR TESTS?
A: I USED THAT PARTICULAR TEST. I DID NOT USE ALL THIRTEEN.

Q: ALL RIGHT.
A: IN AREAS OF THE D.N.A. MOLECULE.

Q: HOW MANY OF THEM DID YOU USE?
A: I USED NINE.

Cornacchia:
I'M REFERRING TO REPORT THAT'S DATED APRIL 22ND, 2002.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, CAN YOU USE THAT AND DESCRIBE THE RESULTS THAT YOU OBTAINED FROM THE SEVEN STAINS THAT YOU TESTED?
A: YES. ON THE STAIN THAT'S BEEN -- THAT WAS DESIGNATED 8-3, I DETERMINED THAT DEREK VAN DAM WAS VERY LIKELY THE SOURCE OF THE D.N.A. RECOVERED FROM THAT STAIN.

Q: THIS JURY HAS ALSO HEARD ESTIMATES OF PROBABILITIES OR STATISTICS. DID YOU CALCULATE ANY SUCH STATISTICS ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT MATCH BETWEEN DEREK VAN DAM AND STAIN 8-3?
A: YES, I DID.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THOSE FOR US, PLEASE.
A: THE PROBABILITIES OF SELECTING AN INDIVIDUAL AT RANDOM THAT MATCHED THE GENETIC PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THE SAMPLE IS APPROXIMATELY
ONE IN 5.8 TRILLION FOR CAUCASIANS,
ONE IN 2.5 QUADRILLION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS, AND ONE IN 2 TRILLION FOR HISPANICS.
(Lowest odds, highest percentage. Math and insects don't lie, people do!!)

Q: I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT YOU ONLY TESTED NINE OF THE THIRTEEN MARKERS ON THESE VARIOUS SAMPLES. IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: WHY NOT ALL THIRTEEN?
A: ONCE I OBTAINED A MATCH WITH THE DEREK VAN DAM PROFILE, THERE WAS NO ADDED OR MORE USEFUL INFORMATION I COULD HAVE OBTAINED BY ADDING THE ADDITIONAL GENETIC MARKERS IN THE CASE.

...Q: ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT STAIN THAT YOU TESTED AND OBTAINED RESULTS FROM.
A: IN A STAIN THAT WAS DESIGNATED AS 8-2, I GOT A MIXTURE OF D.N.A. FROM MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL. DEREK VAN DAM IS LIKELY THE MAJOR OR PREDOMINANT CONTRIBUTOR TO THAT MIXTURE.

Q: IN THIS PARTICULAR SAMPLE, -- AND, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE NUMBER DESIGNATION OF IT AGAIN?
A: THAT WAS AT 8-2.

Q: -- YOU DETERMINED THAT DEREK WAS THE LIKELY PERSON THAT LEFT MOST OF THAT D.N.A.?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE'S ALSO A MINOR CONTRIBUTOR?
A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT, IF ANYTHING, YOU WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE FROM THE TYPES FROM THE MINOR CONTRIBUTOR AND THE KNOWN SAMPLES IN THIS CASE?
A: I DETERMINED THAT DYLAN VAN DAM, DANIELLE VAN DAM, DAMON VAN DAM, BRENDA VAN DAM, AND DAVID WESTERFIELD ARE ALL ELIMINATED AS BEING A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR OF THE MINOR COMPONENT OF THE MIXTURE.

Q: NOW, IN THIS PARTICULAR STAIN MOST OF THE D.N.A. WAS FROM DEREK, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND SOMEONE LEFT THE SMALLER PART OF D.N.A. ON THAT STAIN.
A: THAT IS CORRECT.

...Q: NOW, WAS THERE ANOTHER OR AT LEAST ONE OR MORE STAINS YOU ALSO OBTAINED RESULTS ON?
A: YES. ON THE STAIN DESIGNATED 8-4. THAT WAS ALSO A D.N.A. MIXTURE. I HAVE THAT DEREK VAN DAM CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS BEING THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THE MIXTURE, AND THAT DANIELLE VAN DAM, DYLAN VAN DAM, AND BRENDA VAN DAM CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS BEING THE MINOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THAT MIXTURE.
A: MR. WESTERFIELD WAS EXCLUDED.
(Based upon mitochondrial DNA testing.)
What happens when there is a DNA mix on Danielle's blanket?
Q. FROM YOUR RESULTS ARE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER CONTRIBUTOR TO THAT MIXTURE COULD HAVE BEEN A SIBLING OF DANIELLE VAN DAM OR CAN YOU DETERMINE THAT?
A. I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THAT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

Maybe it could be answered this way:
"DEREK VAN DAM, DYLAN VAN DAM, AND BRENDA VAN DAM CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS BEING THE MINOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THAT MIXTURE."
(Why not try and exclude Brenda as the blood donor on Danielle's blanket? Did the blood on the beanbag chair match the two short dark brown hairs found on Danielle's body?
We have A and B, we just don't know if A=C, B=C or if A and B don't equal C.)

Comment

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, CAN YOU USE THAT AND DESCRIBE THE RESULTS THAT YOU OBTAINED FROM THE SEVEN STAINS THAT YOU TESTED?
A: YES. ON THE STAIN THAT'S BEEN -- THAT WAS DESIGNATED 8-3, I DETERMINED THAT DEREK VAN DAM WAS VERY LIKELY THE SOURCE OF THE D.N.A. RECOVERED FROM THAT STAIN.

Q: THIS JURY HAS ALSO HEARD ESTIMATES OF PROBABILITIES OR STATISTICS. DID YOU CALCULATE ANY SUCH STATISTICS ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT MATCH BETWEEN DEREK VAN DAM AND STAIN 8-3?
A: YES, I DID.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THOSE FOR US, PLEASE.
A: CERTAINLY.
THE PROBABILITIES OF SELECTING AN INDIVIDUAL AT RANDOM THAT MATCHED THE GENETIC PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THE SAMPLE IS APPROXIMATELY
ONE IN 5.8 TRILLION FOR CAUCASIANS,
ONE IN 2.5 QUADRILLION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS, AND ONE IN 2 TRILLION FOR HISPANICS.
(Lowest odds, highest percentage. Simple math PROVES it!!)

...Q: ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT STAIN THAT YOU TESTED AND OBTAINED RESULTS FROM.
A: IN A STAIN THAT WAS DESIGNATED AS 8-2, I GOT A MIXTURE OF D.N.A. FROM MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL. DEREK VAN DAM IS LIKELY THE MAJOR OR PREDOMINANT CONTRIBUTOR TO THAT MIXTURE.

Q: IN THIS PARTICULAR SAMPLE, -- AND, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE NUMBER DESIGNATION OF IT AGAIN?
A: THAT WAS AT 8-2.

Q: -- YOU DETERMINED THAT DEREK WAS THE LIKELY PERSON THAT LEFT MOST OF THAT D.N.A.?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE'S ALSO A MINOR CONTRIBUTOR?
A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT, IF ANYTHING, YOU WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE FROM THE TYPES FROM THE MINOR CONTRIBUTOR AND THE KNOWN SAMPLES IN THIS CASE?
A: I DETERMINED THAT DYLAN VAN DAM, DANIELLE VAN DAM, DAMON VAN DAM, BRENDA VAN DAM, AND DAVID WESTERFIELD ARE ALL ELIMINATED AS BEING A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR OF THE MINOR COMPONENT OF THE MIXTURE.

Q: NOW, IN THIS PARTICULAR STAIN MOST OF THE D.N.A. WAS FROM DEREK, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND SOMEONE LEFT THE SMALLER PART OF D.N.A. ON THAT STAIN.
A: THAT IS CORRECT.

These stats fit stain 8-2 much better than stain 8-3. Which would indicate the person who abducted Danielle could be Hispanic, unless the blond haired, blue eyed Derek is of Hispanic decent. Math is used to prove everything, everything!! Try it, you'll like!! If the DNA was from one of Derek or Danielle's friends, PROVE it, don't assume it!!

...ONE IN 5.8 TRILLION FOR CAUCASIANS,
ONE IN 2.5 QUADRILLION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS, AND ONE IN 2 TRILLION FOR HISPANICS.

Comment

From Court Documents:
"A close examination of this testimony, however, indicates there is no evidentiary link to a true third party suspect."
(Except for the unidentified blood on Danielle's blanket.
The unidentified blood on the bean bag chair.
The unidentified prints found inside the house.
The unidentified short dark brown hairs discovered on and beneath Danielle's body.
The unidentified five particular hairs found on item 89.
The unidentified caller on the 15th suggesting Danielle was abused but alive.
Other than that, no evidentiary link to a true third party suspect.)

Comment

Keyser:
Q LET ME BROADEN THE QUESTION. INDEPENDENT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR TESTIMONY HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THE CONTENTS OF YOUR INVESTIGATION WITH ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY?
A YES, I HAVE.

Q CAN YOU TELL ME WITH WHOM HAVE YOU SPOKEN?
A WELL CERTAINLY WITH DETECTIVE OTT. WE DISCUSSED THE CASE AS IT WAS MOVING ALONG.

Q YES. A I DISCUSSED IT WITH MY SUPERVISOR, SERGEANT HOLMES, AND DISCUSSED THE PROGRESS OF THE CASE AS IT WAS UNFOLDING WITH MEMBERS OF THE INVESTIGATIVE TEAM. LIEUTENANT COLLINS, CAPTAIN NEWMAN, LIEUTENANT DUNCAN, AND OTHER DETECTIVES THAT WERE PRESENT DURING THE BRIEFINGS.

Comment

Tidbit:The tip to the Recovery Center was on 2/26. A woman called in the tip. She claimed to be psychic and gave a description of the area and told them it needed to be searched again. It was not a Bill Garcia hunch as we suspected or were led to believe.

...Tuesday, Feb. 26Westerfield arraigned on charges he kidnapped and murdered Danielle and misdemeanor possession of child pornography. Pleads not guilty.

"...THE JAIL CONTACT THAT DETECTIVES OTT AND KEYSER TRIED ON THE 28TH..."

Two ILLEGAL jail visitis by SDPD:
Q YOU TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION YESTERDAY THAT FOLLOWING MR. WESTERFIELD'S ARRAIGNMENT YOU WENT WITH DETECTIVE OTT TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY JAIL. DO YOU RECALL?
A I TESTIFIED AFTER THAT SCENE WAS PROCESSED (Feb. 27). I NEVER SAID AFTER THE ARRAIGNMENT (Feb. 26), SIR.

Keyser's FIRST jail contact with Westerfield:
Q SO IS IT NOW YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU NEVER VISITED MR. WESTERFIELD FOLLOWING THE ARRAIGNMENT?

MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION, AND I WILL ALLOW THE AREA OF INQUIRY.

BY MR. FELDMAN: Q DID YOU EVER VISIT MR. WESTERFIELD AFTER THE ARRAIGNMENT?
A YES, SIR.

Q DID YOU DISCUSS THAT VISIT WITH ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
A YES.

Q WITH WHOM?
A I DISCUSSED IT WITH MY SUPERVISORS.

Q WHAT SUPERVISORS? A THAT WOULD BE SERGEANT HOLMES AND LIEUTENANT DUNCAN.

Q AND DID YOU DISCUSS IT WITH INTERNAL AFFAIRS?
A NO.

Q OTHER THAN SERGEANT HOLMESI LIEUTENANT DUNCANI WHO ELSE DID YOU DISCUSS THE POST-ARRAIGNMENT VISIT WITH?
A I BELIEVE WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION REFERENCE THE JAIL VISIT MEMBERS OF MY TEAM WERE PRESENT. THAT WOULD BE DETECTIVES HERGENROETHER AND DETECTIVE JIM TOMSOVIC.

Q AND DID YOU DISCUSS WITH ANY OF THESE GENTLEMEN BEFORE YOU WENT TO THE JAIL FOLLOWING THE ARRAIGNMENT THE FACT THAT YOU WERE INTENDING TO GO TO THE JAIL?
A YES SIR.

Q WITH WHOM DID YOU DISCUSS THE FACT THAT YOU INTENDED TO GO TO THE JAIL BEFORE YOU WENT TO THE JAIL FOLLOWING THE ARRAIGNMENT?
A WITH DETECTIVE SERGEANT HOLMES.

Q AND DID DETECTIVE SERGEANT HOLMES GIVE YOU PERMISSION -- STRIKE THAT. WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN SPEAKING WITH SERGEANT HOLMES TO OBTAIN PERMISSION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR YOU, GIVEN THAT MR. WESTERFIELD HAD BEEN ARRAIGNED, TO GO TO THE JAIL?
A YES.

Q AND SO YOU RECEIVED THE PERMISSION OF SERGEANT HOLMES TO DO SO, IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.

Karen is asked about the second jail visit:
Q AND YOU WERE ALSO THE EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN WHO RECEIVED THE AUDIO TAPE OF THE JAIL CONTACT THAT DETECTIVES OTT AND KEYSER TRIED ON THE 28TH; ISN'T THAT TRUE?